Never think enough is enough.. Current operation levels can easily be pushed many
times their current level/ratio in a short matter of time, and databases
can grow rapidly (Even tho it's not identified here)
I have spec'd boxes before based on someone reccomendations for load, and
then found 2 months later the box is choking, time to upgrade = potential
downtime..
2 extra disks is minimal cost for the I/O boost and amount
of extra capacity you'll get.
I agree with the write cache and battery backup... Any decent raidcard has
that option for a few bucks...
4GB database today, can easily turn into a 20GB database tomorrow.. Never
think small,
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> colbey@stripped wrote:
>
> > I'd go with raid 1+0 ... Be a shame to have that much cpu power and become
> > I/O bound.. This way you've got 4 disks feeding the cpu's instead of 2..
> > Better performance than raid 5, and only 2 more disks than your current
> > config.
>
> If you have 8 GB of RAM and 4 GB of database, you would only
> become I/O bound if write a few hundred blocking commits per
> second to the disk*. In that case, having a battery backed RAID
> adapter with write cache enabled is a much better way of
> improving performance as going from RAID 1 to RAID 1+0.
>
> *Presuming the OS has a sane disk cache or is 64 bit.
>
> Jochem
>
> --
> I don't get it
> immigrants don't work
> and steal our jobs
> - Loesje
>
>
> --
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=1>

Content reproduced on this site is the property of the respective copyright holders. It is not reviewed in advance by Oracle and does not necessarily represent the opinion of Oracle or any other party.